| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/27/2011 06:03:20 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... I don't hear much in the way of moral argument on this thread. |
The atheist are to blame I tell ya... :O)
Ray |
Actually Spaz had secretly switched to a moral argument when his pragmatic one failed. He did not want to try to show the death penalty was a deterrent to future crime so he went with the summary argument that relief of suffering of victim's families is good. He then implied this relief of suffering is worth enough to outweigh the bad risked by killing an innocent.
It all comes back to morality at the end of the day... |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 06:12:56 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Personally, if someone murdered my family member I would want them executed, not safe and comfortable in a prison getting free health care, meals, family visits and housing. That's not punishment, that's a vacation. |
Would it gnaw at you if in fact the executed person was later found to be innocent? An innocent person dead and the murderer still on the loose. Or would you feel better because at least 'someone' paid the price.
I'm also curious if being in prison is a vacation then why is a reversed 20 or 30 year sentence just as bad as a wrongful executions as you postulated earlier? Is it a vacation or something as bad as execution. You can't own both sides of the argument :-) |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 07:59:49 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Personally, if someone murdered my family member I would want them executed, not safe and comfortable in a prison getting free health care, meals, family visits and housing. That's not punishment, that's a vacation. |
Would it gnaw at you if in fact the executed person was later found to be innocent? An innocent person dead and the murderer still on the loose. Or would you feel better because at least 'someone' paid the price.
I'm also curious if being in prison is a vacation then why is a reversed 20 or 30 year sentence just as bad as a wrongful executions as you postulated earlier? Is it a vacation or something as bad as execution. You can't own both sides of the argument :-) |
He did not say " if someone murdered my family member I would like an innocent person executed" Or did he? The idea is to punish guilty not innocent. |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 08:05:42 PM · #179 |
here is a good example
//detnews.com/article/20110927/METRO/109270369/1409/rss36
Does anyone think this guy is innocent? Does anyone think he will be found innocent at the later date? This is a perfect example of the total waste of time and tax dollars. Too bad we'll take care of him for a long time.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2011 08:17:16 PM · #180 |
"Conservatives" tend to be fond of the "slippery-slope" argument ... well how about the slippery-slope of "We'll only execute those who we're *really* sure are guilty"? "Well, we were pretty sure." "Gee, he sure looked guilty to me."
It's already been shown that people who have been adjudged "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" are nevertheless later proven innocent. How many innocents are you willing to sacrifice in order to exact vengeance on the guilty?
Besides, I'd rather let them sit around for 22 hours a day and let them think about what they did ... |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 08:35:38 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"Conservatives" tend to be fond of the "slippery-slope" argument ... well how about the slippery-slope of "We'll only execute those who we're *really* sure are guilty"? "Well, we were pretty sure." "Gee, he sure looked guilty to me."
It's already been shown that people who have been adjudged "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" are nevertheless later proven innocent. How many innocents are you willing to sacrifice in order to exact vengeance on the guilty?
Besides, I'd rather let them sit around for 22 hours a day and let them think about what they did ... |
It has been proven that some paroled criminals kill an innocent person shortly after parole. How many Innocent victims of a repeat offenders are you willing to sacrifice in experiments to see if the rehabilitation worked? |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 08:36:53 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by karmat:
I use to be pro-capital punishment. No arguments.
Then, as I grew and evaluated some of my other views, I began to see an inconsistency. I don't want to bring up another can of worms in this thread, but suffice it to say that life is life. The system is not perfect, but the imperfections should not be a life or death matter to some. |
Isn't it amazing how many people who believe that abortion is wrong because "all (human) life is sacred" are also in favor of capital punishment? As I understand it, "sacred" means that something is in the provenance of God, and us imperfect mortals had best not meddle or else ...
And of course, I suppose the reverse view can be seen as equally ironic. |
That was the inconsistency that made me revisit my philosophies. And, yes, I find the reverse to be ironic as well. |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 08:50:00 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by Basta:
It has been proven that some paroled criminals kill an innocent person shortly after parole. How many Innocent victims of a repeat offenders are you willing to sacrifice in experiments to see if the rehabilitation worked? |
I think paroling convicted killers and executing covicted killers are two different debates. I don't think that many people debating the "err on the side of caution" approach are saying convicted killers should be set free. We're just saying that execution can't be reversed. Society needs to be protected but do we want to do that at the price of killing the innocent? |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 09:04:08 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by Basta:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"Conservatives" tend to be fond of the "slippery-slope" argument ... well how about the slippery-slope of "We'll only execute those who we're *really* sure are guilty"? "Well, we were pretty sure." "Gee, he sure looked guilty to me."
It's already been shown that people who have been adjudged "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" are nevertheless later proven innocent. How many innocents are you willing to sacrifice in order to exact vengeance on the guilty?
Besides, I'd rather let them sit around for 22 hours a day and let them think about what they did ... |
It has been proven that some paroled criminals kill an innocent person shortly after parole. How many Innocent victims of a repeat offenders are you willing to sacrifice in experiments to see if the rehabilitation worked? |
What part of "Life without possibility of parole" is unclear to you? |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 09:24:07 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... I don't hear much in the way of moral argument on this thread. |
The atheist are to blame I tell ya... :O)
Ray |
Actually Spaz had secretly switched to a moral argument when his pragmatic one failed. He did not want to try to show the death penalty was a deterrent to future crime so he went with the summary argument that relief of suffering of victim's families is good. He then implied this relief of suffering is worth enough to outweigh the bad risked by killing an innocent.
It all comes back to morality at the end of the day... |
No, it's one reason.
The fact is you're not willing to see that the problem is not with the death penalty as a legal penalty, it's that the system is imperfect. Abolishing the death penalty would do nothing to change the number of wrongful convictions or the number of people, no matter how miniscule, being punished for crimes, whatever they may be, that they did not commit. The sentence is still carried out, regardless of what that sentence might be.
The issue of the death penalty being irreversible after execution is true. No other penalty is reversible either. If a man serves time in prison before being found innocent, nothing can reverse that and give him back that time.
Message edited by author 2011-09-27 21:41:43. |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 09:24:44 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by karmat:
I use to be pro-capital punishment. No arguments.
Then, as I grew and evaluated some of my other views, I began to see an inconsistency. I don't want to bring up another can of worms in this thread, but suffice it to say that life is life. The system is not perfect, but the imperfections should not be a life or death matter to some. |
I used to be anti-capital punishment. And than I grew up. Things change, politics change, conflicts start....and when things get out of the control ALL prisoners of the OLD system get freed. I guess its some kind of rebellion against the old. After that somehow worst criminals get in a command positions ( don't underestimate very violent people, some of them a very intelligent and manipulative ) I have seen this in person during late 80's and 90's in Africa and the Balkans. Some of them become the Generals and such in a very short time ( a General in a month or less without any prior military experience, but a very long violent criminal past ) many elevated to a national hero level. No court can touch them at this point, they have not changed. Did you ever wonder why some of the countries stay in the civil war for decades?
This is just one of the reasons, society should not take a chance with keeping them in cages. They could get out. How many times did you hear about prison break?
I know some of you will try and turn this around, like I said "kill them all"
so to make it clear...Get rid of the ones there is no doubt fast, and the ones not so clear cases take a good and long look...
edit: punishment must fit the crime. Ultimately the criminal decides with his actions what his punishment should be. Extreme violent behavior in prison is a good sign where he needs to go. If a prisoner runs a Crime INC.on the streets from his cell...time to go..sorry, they made there choices
Message edited by author 2011-09-27 21:50:02. |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 09:29:57 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Basta:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"Conservatives" tend to be fond of the "slippery-slope" argument ... well how about the slippery-slope of "We'll only execute those who we're *really* sure are guilty"? "Well, we were pretty sure." "Gee, he sure looked guilty to me."
It's already been shown that people who have been adjudged "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" are nevertheless later proven innocent. How many innocents are you willing to sacrifice in order to exact vengeance on the guilty?
Besides, I'd rather let them sit around for 22 hours a day and let them think about what they did ... |
It has been proven that some paroled criminals kill an innocent person shortly after parole. How many Innocent victims of a repeat offenders are you willing to sacrifice in experiments to see if the rehabilitation worked? |
What part of "Life without possibility of parole" is unclear to you? |
Are you serious? You never heard about parole or pardon to a murderer? "life without parole"? you are thinking " life UNTILL paroled" |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 09:37:28 PM · #188 |
Michigan governor Granholm: 32 of the 2008/2009 commutations went to prisoners convicted of first degree murder, but about 1/3 went to prisoners because of some "medical condition." In addition, about 13,000 prisoners were paroled - the most ever.
Edit: This is cut and paste from an online source
Message edited by author 2011-09-27 21:40:42. |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 09:59:30 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
The issue of the death penalty being irreversible after execution is true. No other penalty is reversible either. If a man serves time in prison before being found innocent, nothing can reverse that and give him back that time. |
This is a bit of semantics; the sentence is reversed not the penalty already served. Your argument is a red herring. A reversed imprisonment sentence can be rectified at least in part. A death sentence can't be. |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 10:10:14 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by Basta:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Basta:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"Conservatives" tend to be fond of the "slippery-slope" argument ... well how about the slippery-slope of "We'll only execute those who we're *really* sure are guilty"? "Well, we were pretty sure." "Gee, he sure looked guilty to me."
It's already been shown that people who have been adjudged "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" are nevertheless later proven innocent. How many innocents are you willing to sacrifice in order to exact vengeance on the guilty?
Besides, I'd rather let them sit around for 22 hours a day and let them think about what they did ... |
It has been proven that some paroled criminals kill an innocent person shortly after parole. How many Innocent victims of a repeat offenders are you willing to sacrifice in experiments to see if the rehabilitation worked? |
What part of "Life without possibility of parole" is unclear to you? |
Are you serious? You never heard about parole or pardon to a murderer? "life without parole"? you are thinking " life UNTILL paroled" |
Yes, but you know what -- most murderers are NOT "eligible" for the death penalty anyway, even in Texas. And increasingly, the alternative being given to the jury in those cases which are tried as capital offenses, is either execution or life without parole. You are talking about past cases, where mistakes have inevitably been made in "both directions." I am talking about what to do with future cases. |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 10:34:43 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
Originally posted by Basta:
It has been proven that some paroled criminals kill an innocent person shortly after parole. How many Innocent victims of a repeat offenders are you willing to sacrifice in experiments to see if the rehabilitation worked? |
I think paroling convicted killers and executing covicted killers are two different debates. I don't think that many people debating the "err on the side of caution" approach are saying convicted killers should be set free. We're just saying that execution can't be reversed. Society needs to be protected but do we want to do that at the price of killing the innocent? |
it was just another side of the coin, to his: " t's already been shown that people who have been adjudged "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" are nevertheless later proven innocent. How many innocents are you willing to sacrifice in order to exact vengeance on the guilty? "
|
|
|
|
09/27/2011 11:45:22 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Isn't it amazing how many people who believe that abortion is wrong because "all (human) life is sacred" are also in favor of capital punishment? As I understand it, "sacred" means that something is in the provenance of God, and us imperfect mortals had best not meddle or else ...
And of course, I suppose the reverse view can be seen as equally ironic. |
I'm against the death penalty but I'm pro-choice (some call that a moral paradox). I'm pro-choice in the hope the choice is life. As a person I'm still very on edge with the subject. That's another topic though.
Originally posted by Basta:
He did not say " if someone murdered my family member I would like an innocent person executed" Or did he? The idea is to punish guilty not innocent. |
He doesn't have to say it, it's already part of the possible equation. I could use an analogy but what's the point. There are cases there is no doubt of crimes committed. But there are plenty of cases where it is not so black and white. Anthony Graves was labeled cold-blooded killer and on death row for years. Had his sentence been carried out, what would we as a people who put him there (By supporting the death penalty) do to atone for our stance on the matter? He is one of the lucky ones, he's free. How many weren't so luck or aren't going to be so lucky because of our lust for blood over our ability to forgive. |
|
|
|
09/28/2011 12:17:24 AM · #193 |
Originally posted by heavyj:
Had his sentence been carried out, what would we as a people who put him there (By supporting the death penalty) do to atone for our stance on the matter? |
If an innocent person is put to death deliberately and with premeditation, that's called murder, right?
So, executing the erring judge, jury, lead prosecutor, lead investigator, and eyewitnesses would seem the only appropriate pubishment for conspiring to commit premeditated murder, and since their crime is "on the record" it seems to me we could dispense with those tedious and expensive appeals and march them right to the gallows as soon as the DNA test results are in ...
Message edited by author 2011-09-28 00:17:55. |
|
|
|
09/28/2011 01:08:07 AM · #194 |
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
Originally posted by Spork99:
The issue of the death penalty being irreversible after execution is true. No other penalty is reversible either. If a man serves time in prison before being found innocent, nothing can reverse that and give him back that time. |
This is a bit of semantics; the sentence is reversed not the penalty already served. Your argument is a red herring. A reversed imprisonment sentence can be rectified at least in part. A death sentence can't be. |
Have you invented time travel? How can time spent incarcerated be returned?
It's irreversible.
Now if you're upset by the death penalty as a punishment, that's one thing. Trying to justify your objection to it by bringing the possibility of erroneous conviction into it is meaningless. Why not object to life sentences? or 25 year sentences or 10 year prison terms or whatever. Let's say a man is wrongfully convicted of a crime and sentenced to 10 years in prison, but he gets beaten to death by a prison gang before he can be exonerated. How does that differ from a death sentence? Can you reverse that? The state didn't stick the needle in his arm, but they're responsible for his well-being all the same and they made the mistake that resulted in his death. What's the difference?
|
|
|
|
09/28/2011 02:22:11 AM · #195 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
Originally posted by Spork99:
The issue of the death penalty being irreversible after execution is true. No other penalty is reversible either. If a man serves time in prison before being found innocent, nothing can reverse that and give him back that time. |
This is a bit of semantics; the sentence is reversed not the penalty already served. Your argument is a red herring. A reversed imprisonment sentence can be rectified at least in part. A death sentence can't be. |
Have you invented time travel? How can time spent incarcerated be returned?
It's irreversible.
Now if you're upset by the death penalty as a punishment, that's one thing. Trying to justify your objection to it by bringing the possibility of erroneous conviction into it is meaningless. Why not object to life sentences? or 25 year sentences or 10 year prison terms or whatever. Let's say a man is wrongfully convicted of a crime and sentenced to 10 years in prison, but he gets beaten to death by a prison gang before he can be exonerated. How does that differ from a death sentence? Can you reverse that? The state didn't stick the needle in his arm, but they're responsible for his well-being all the same and they made the mistake that resulted in his death. What's the difference? |
I'm not sure how many innocent men are getting beaten to death in jail, but it is different than being strapped into a gurney and executed by the state. Just like inside the walls of a prison with officials, rules etc to keep people in place, there are the same laws beyond the walls in our society. Some abide them, some don't. An innocent man can be beaten to death in prison and that is the fault of the people in charge. An innocent man can be beaten outside of prison and that can be the fault of many variables (Lack of security, lack of police in high crime areas etc). You won't find yourself walking down the street, grabbed by officials, told 'you did it' strapped to a makeshift gurney and executed in public.
However, I will admit that the feelings would be the same. I would blame the prison system for not protecting who I believe to be an innocent person and was later proven so. No difference in feelings between that and an executed man later proven innocent |
|
|
|
09/28/2011 03:18:10 AM · #196 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Now if you're upset by the death penalty as a punishment, that's one thing. Trying to justify your objection to it by bringing the possibility of erroneous conviction into it is meaningless. |
Hang on there, your argument slipped a cog.
If a person is upset that the death penalty is imposed is no more relevant than if a person is upset that more people are not given the death penalty. Emotional reaction is not an argument.
The fact that the state has and will continue to put to death wrongfully convicted people is not meaningless. It is the core of the argument against the death penalty. The fact that innocent people are killed by random murderers does not give the state the right to do the same. Our government ought to act in the manner of its best citizens, not its worst. |
|
|
|
09/28/2011 05:42:51 AM · #197 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[
If an innocent person is put to death deliberately and with premeditation, that's called murder, right? |
Actually, it could be WAR...but I digress.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/28/2011 08:55:23 AM · #198 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Now if you're upset by the death penalty as a punishment, that's one thing. Trying to justify your objection to it by bringing the possibility of erroneous conviction into it is meaningless. |
Hang on there, your argument slipped a cog.
If a person is upset that the death penalty is imposed is no more relevant than if a person is upset that more people are not given the death penalty. Emotional reaction is not an argument.
The fact that the state has and will continue to put to death wrongfully convicted people is not meaningless. It is the core of the argument against the death penalty. The fact that innocent people are killed by random murderers does not give the state the right to do the same. Our government ought to act in the manner of its best citizens, not its worst. |
And who are the best citizens? Our leaders politicians? judges? religious fanatics? who are the best? and who gets to decide who the best are?
the fact that the state imprisoned innocent is not irrelevant. Fixing the problem should start at the beginning not the end. |
|
|
|
09/28/2011 08:56:44 AM · #199 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[
If an innocent person is put to death deliberately and with premeditation, that's called murder, right? |
Actually, it could be WAR...but I digress.
Ray |
Very well seen Ray...very well..you have an eye. |
|
|
|
09/28/2011 09:21:43 AM · #200 |
Originally posted by heavyj:
There are cases there is no doubt of crimes committed. |
this is a perfect case to talk about... since there is no doubt, should we just let him go because the case is solved? or do we need to forgive, because the case is solved? maybe in this case if the murderer said he is sorry and that makes it ok? Does society need to give him a brake?
how does society give a brake to the murder victim? how is rewording a murderer with a nice treatment fair to the victim? did he treat victim nicely while he was committing the murder? why do you try to make it sound like a criminal is the victim? |
|
